nico_morris

<p>It might help you to know that the zoom action of the 70-210 f4 is normally very light and the lens is fairly short and light. I was content to use it wide open whereas with many f2.8 I could only tolerate them at f3.3- gaining only 1/2 stop.</p>

<p>I tested a refurbished new-looking D7000 and guess what, it focused badly. Worse than thrashed ones.<br> Maybe your friend isn't such a 'friend' and passed you a camera that tantalisingly costs almost as much to repair as buy a used replacement of.</p>

<p>You have to think not once, not twice, but three times and then unlock it. It's to stop you taking bad pictures.<br> Obviously I don't bother with it.</p>

<p>Actually it would help if you tell us your body. There may be hardly any point in upgrading the optics if you are using an 8MP 20D. I used the kind of lens you are using and mainly what you can hope for is some extra resolution toward the edge of the frame on 200mm. And people taking note of you because you have quite a big white lens.</p>

<p>Firstly, I am not aware of any company themselves calling a camera a "prosumer" one. It seems to be a tag for review sites and possibly even retail sites and award bodies. Please give an example if I've missed something, I'm actually interested.<br /> Secondly, it reflects a price bracket more than anything else. If an entry-level SLR body is $500, and a professional workhorse is $5000, expect the difference to be split somewhere in the middle for the "prosumer" body.<br /> Thirdly, in practice these cameras are generally built to provide a high potential image quality subject to certain provisos that the controls are less convenient for constant use or the item needs to be "babied". A focus ring on a video recorder may not be broad and on the lens where it's most natural, or the body composition might not stand regular knocks in use.</p> <blockquote> <p>The funny thing is that what is pro today is toy tomorrow. So pros of today cannot use their present gear to make pro pictures tomorrow. How did they "dislearn" their capability?<br /> (Btw: Dimage A2 was promoted as a prosumer camera when it was introduced. It had everything a DSLR had except a mirror and a lens mount. Who would call it prosumer today? The A2 was my first digital camera, back in 2004.)</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> The Dimage A2 from 2004 needs to be understood in the context of the time. It was 8 megapixels released before the professional SLR the 8 megapixel Canon 1D Mark II and the A2 had a lot of serious-looking dials and buttons and a body grip available. Now we look on it as amateurish because it was cheaper to make the electronic viewfinder, the sensor was small and the lens was not interchangeable. But at the time it won an award for its professional results from DIWA and TIPA. Who probably existed for the benefit of the industry, admittedly...</p>

<blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=729251">Edward Chen</a> , Sep 17, 2014; 12:28 p.m. Canon shooters envy nikon'DR and nikon shooters envy canon's AF</p> </blockquote> <p>They don't envy Canon AF in the crop-sensor market. I've been invested in both camps and never seen D300 owners moan as much as 7D owners about their autofocus.<br> In the action shooter's market, DR advantage seems only limited though.</p>

<blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=620661">hn Crowe</a>, Sep 17, 2014; 08:25 p.m.</p> <p>Okay, 22 MP vs 20 MP may seem trivial, and I don't mean to pick on this particular camera. However we are talking five years since the 7D was introduced and lets face it this could be Canon's premiere consumer crop body for another 5 years!</p> </blockquote> <p>... it's been too long, but there's a better chance it can hold its own for the next 5 years than the 7D, with the wide AF point coverage for instance.</p> <blockquote> <p>I had just hoped that Canon would make an attempt to surpass Nikon in every respect in both full frame and crop body rather than continue taking baby steps. Five years ago Canon truly set the bar with the 7D and I think this time they have left a lot of room for the competition to jump much higher.</p> </blockquote> <p>... not sure why you wouldn't think the 7D II surpasses Nikon in this market. Higher build values, more fps, even more AF point coverage, very similar pixel pitch for instance. But Canon did not really set the bar with the 7D, they responded to a D300 with 8fps and 51 focus points with a camera with 8fps and 19 focus points, with a more recent sensor.</p> <blockquote> <p>I understand that the AF system could/should be a significant improvement but 5 years to get 2 more MP and 2 more fps? I would rather they stuck with 8 fps and pushed the IQ beyond the <em><strong>current</strong> </em>competition.</p> </blockquote> <p>I fail to understand why you do not see how important a leap this generation is for the money, if you shoot racing cars. The megapixels are not necessarily important for sports as there are usually simple backgrounds with big areas of out-of-focus colour wide open. And a real and usable 10fps on a mass SLR as far as I know was first achieved with the Canon 1D III, which was a ~$5000 camera 7 years ago.<br /> Your perspective makes more sense for a general-shooter amateur with some money burning a hole in his pocket expecting high megapixels and flashy features. I struggle to care about features like GPS and hinged screens personally.</p>

<p>To give an idea of what to expect, I have had stable-looking shots at 1/10s for 28-70 zooms and 1/15s 70-210 types before. The mechanism does not seem to be able to move far enough to do so much for lenses over 200mm if not held steady.<br> <strong>Stops</strong> does not seem to cover it as quite adequately, even if the simple mathematical formula is tempting. It's as if the mechanism can follow your oscillations to a certain optimum frequency, so long as it's within the movement range of the mechanism. You will not be able to in practice extrapolate a successful result at 200mm 1/15s to getting 18mm 1/2s for example. Try it yourself, it doesn't work. Or does it? ;)</p>

<blockquote> <p>D7100 can easily write 7, 8 fps, 24MP directly into the memory card with no more concern about the buffer. However, I don't think that kind of consumer-grade body is going to sustain 8 fps for long; the mirror box is not going to last.</p> </blockquote> <p>You've made this kind of assertion before. Could you please outline your engineering design or repair experience. Independent workshops doing insurance repairs have been known to fraudulently resort to the mirror box replacement tariff because it is the highest, which skews the statistics.<br> The mirror mechanism I believe is controlled by more than one electromagnet in modern cameras. It's not fired on a spring, waiting to shatter.<br> Mainly I believe people miss the point that the retail price reflects the features ladder and profit margin.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There is really no innovation here just an improvement over what other manufacturers were already offering...</p> </blockquote> <p>Only one other manufacturer in this price range as far as I know, and a very minor player in this market.<br> Sony A77 Mark II has some intriguing specifications on paper, but when the conditions of achieving its highest framerate are met and the lag of the electronic viewfinder investigated, things are not so encouraging. That is even before their lens range is considered.<br> And the D300 is a very old camera now.</p>